Comparative study using fractional carbon dioxide laser versus glycolic acid peel in treatment of pseudo-acanthosis nigricans
- 266 Downloads
Pseudo-acanthosis nigricans is a common dermatological disorder that is usually difficult to treat secondary to maceration of the skin from excessive sweating, obesity, or associated with endocrine disorders. Fractional photothermolysis and chemical peeling have been reported to improve the condition. To determine whether fractional CO2 laser resurfacing or glycolic acid peel is more effective and safe option for therapy. Twenty Egyptian patients were included in the study where each patient was subjected to three sessions of both fractional CO2 on the right side of the neck and glycolic acid peel 70% on the left side of the neck. All patients were evaluated by a scoring system Acanthosis Nigricans Area and Severity Index (ANASI) score and three blinded dermatologists before and after treatment. Clinical improvement on the side treated by glycolic acid peel showed 43% improvement while the side treated by fractional CO2 showed 19% improvement. Glycolic acid peel shows superior results to fractional CO2 due to accelerated induced exfoliation, yet still fractional CO2 results are promising due to a presumably long-term improvement of skin texture.
KeywordsPseudo-acanthosis nigricans Acanthosis nigricans scoring system Glycolic acid peel Fractional CO2 laser
We thank Professor Samia Esmat, Professor of Dermatology, Cairo University, for her help in final editing of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 11.Campos MA, Varela P, Baptista A, Ferreira EO (2016) Unilateral nevoid acanthosis nigricans treated with CO2 laser. BMJ Case Rep 25:2016Google Scholar